From e95fda37278b0b1f4d5a03be219f0bcf078d556c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2026 18:21:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Translate commons principles into contribution and stewardship guidance --- CONTRIBUTING.md | 10 ++++++++++ PROJECT_STEWARDSHIP.md | 8 ++++++++ PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md | 4 ++++ README.md | 4 ++++ profile/README.md | 4 ++++ 5 files changed, 30 insertions(+) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index ab18a0a..534a0ec 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -70,3 +70,13 @@ A pull request should make it possible for another contributor to understand: 5. what remains unresolved, if anything. Use the organization pull-request template when a repository does not define its own. + +## Collaboration and bounded openness + +The shared [commons collaboration proposal](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/blob/main/commons/README.md#collaboration-as-a-living-experiment) welcomes corrections, counterexamples, alternative models, domain expertise, lived experience, and small contributions. Agreement with an originator or the whole ecosystem is not a prerequisite. Give claims appropriate evidence and keep normative disagreement visible. + +Contribution does not confer merge, moderation, administrative, data-access, or publication authority. Use branches and review for consequential changes. Public branches and PRs are public publication surfaces; private drafts and participant material require explicit promotion before crossing that boundary. + +Document consequential powers and unresolved objections. Conduct boundaries should protect participation while leaving criticism possible. Repair is voluntary and must not require reconciliation or exposure. Make pauses, handoffs, smaller scope, and departure ordinary options; a fork remains bounded by licenses, third-party rights, and privacy. + +When proposing a collaboration experiment, identify the question, affected perspectives, burdens, authority, observations, review/stop conditions, and limits. Participation in repository work is not enrollment in participant research. Extend existing project processes; do not infer a new governing body or lift a project hold from this default guide. diff --git a/PROJECT_STEWARDSHIP.md b/PROJECT_STEWARDSHIP.md index 2c32ba0..d796a9c 100644 --- a/PROJECT_STEWARDSHIP.md +++ b/PROJECT_STEWARDSHIP.md @@ -195,3 +195,11 @@ A repository that has not adopted stewardship should continue working normally. A healthy project should require less remembering over time, not more. The maintenance layer exists so people can spend attention on exploration, learning, building, revising, connecting ideas, and adapting to new constraints instead of repeatedly reconstructing what routine maintenance was forgotten. + +## Human stewardship and adaptation + +**Proposed review prompts, not newly assigned roles or configured automation.** Extend the existing maintenance model by making consequential powers and burdens inspectable: actual maintainer, scope of access, decision authority, review route, handoff, and revocation. Maintenance labor does not automatically grant wider project authority. + +Ask whether the process depends on an irreplaceable person, consumes more attention than it saves, discourages criticism, or transfers unpaid work to someone else. Stepping away, reducing scope, and retiring a project are legitimate outcomes. A handoff should preserve the minimum operational knowledge and authorized access without retaining unnecessary personal information. + +Use voluntary feedback and bounded records to compare expected and actual maintenance costs. Record missing evidence and unresolved dissent. Silence, inactivity, and fewer contributions are ambiguous; they do not authorize deletion, publication, expanded automation, or changes to governance. Review signals should lead to a scoped proposal or a decision to stop, not a universal reputation or productivity score. diff --git a/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md b/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md index 38e407d..abe1063 100644 --- a/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md +++ b/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md @@ -25,3 +25,7 @@ Check only what is relevant; do not update files mechanically. ## Notes / unresolved questions + +## Participation and authority, when relevant + + diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index b593ba3..e787ccf 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -35,3 +35,7 @@ npm run docs:audit Repositories can adopt the template incrementally. A repository without those scripts simply skips the corresponding maintenance steps. The longer-term plan is to move reusable maintenance logic into a dedicated cross-project stewardship engine while organization `.github` repositories remain thin adapters/templates. + +## Collaboration proposal + +The shared [commons principles](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/blob/main/commons/README.md#collaboration-as-a-living-experiment) remain in the conceptual commons. [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md) applies them to reviewable repository contributions, while [Project Stewardship](PROJECT_STEWARDSHIP.md#human-stewardship-and-adaptation) adds human maintenance and handoff prompts. These documents propose practice without creating new offices, authority, or automation. diff --git a/profile/README.md b/profile/README.md index 41f41b1..fb22bcf 100644 --- a/profile/README.md +++ b/profile/README.md @@ -132,3 +132,7 @@ Community Infrastructure sits particularly close to that boundary: it is a Root Root Sequence is active, evolving, and intentionally unfinished. Licensing varies by repository. Check the individual project before reusing material—especially unpublished fiction, private research, contributed archives, or work with separate consent and provenance requirements. + +## Collaborating and learning together + +Root Sequence welcomes questioning, correction, counterexamples, and local adaptations. The [commons collaboration proposal](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/blob/main/commons/README.md#collaboration-as-a-living-experiment) develops bounded openness, protected disagreement, accountable powers, voluntary repair, sustainable maintenance, and useful departure. Each repository retains its own scope and decision process; participation does not require agreement with one originator or adoption of the whole ecosystem. From 36527befd9f1f5576966940e9b57ef7aa194167f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2026 22:22:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Keep profile presentation in the professional-refresh review --- profile/README.md | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/profile/README.md b/profile/README.md index fb22bcf..41f41b1 100644 --- a/profile/README.md +++ b/profile/README.md @@ -132,7 +132,3 @@ Community Infrastructure sits particularly close to that boundary: it is a Root Root Sequence is active, evolving, and intentionally unfinished. Licensing varies by repository. Check the individual project before reusing material—especially unpublished fiction, private research, contributed archives, or work with separate consent and provenance requirements. - -## Collaborating and learning together - -Root Sequence welcomes questioning, correction, counterexamples, and local adaptations. The [commons collaboration proposal](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/blob/main/commons/README.md#collaboration-as-a-living-experiment) develops bounded openness, protected disagreement, accountable powers, voluntary repair, sustainable maintenance, and useful departure. Each repository retains its own scope and decision process; participation does not require agreement with one originator or adoption of the whole ecosystem.